Closest to 100% as possible, and everyone involved makes sure to be safe.

Yep, I fucked a few bored housewives. In fact, one time a picture of her husband fell out of her pocket. She asked me if it bothered me. I pulled her on top of it and fucked her.

I just meet up with women on the town, at the gym, at college, and walking around. The wonders actually having an amazingly attractive body does. And yes, I do go on Porn sites and look at their videos when I can't find a good lay.

So you don’t think cheating on a spouse is wrong? And you don’t consider pornography to be exploitative of women? This shows that us conservative Christians have better moral teachings on loving relationships, and women’s rights than you atheists.

Consenting adults, and consenting adults.

Now, if you want to argue that there wasn't consent, that'd be another matter... and if you want to argue that there can't be consent I have some radfem blogs I'd love to show you.

But a couple in marriage are in a legal lifelong loving relationship so yeah it is consensual, but it is immoral to be having sex with someone who is married. Wouldn’t you be upset if you had a wife and you found out that she cheated on you?

And pornography is exploitive of women because it puts them in an industry that treats them as sex objects and not as people, and because pornography often attacks perverts. Pornography is a form of prostitution.

Closest to 100% as possible, and everyone involved makes sure to be safe.

Yep, I fucked a few bored housewives. In fact, one time a picture of her husband fell out of her pocket. She asked me if it bothered me. I pulled her on top of it and fucked her.

I just meet up with women on the town, at the gym, at college, and walking around. The wonders actually having an amazingly attractive body does. And yes, I do go on Porn sites and look at their videos when I can't find a good lay.

So you don’t think cheating on a spouse is wrong? And you don’t consider pornography to be exploitative of women? This shows that us conservative Christians have better moral teachings on loving relationships, and women’s rights than you atheists.

Consenting adults, and consenting adults.

Now, if you want to argue that there wasn't consent, that'd be another matter... and if you want to argue that there can't be consent I have some radfem blogs I'd love to show you.

But a couple in marriage are in a legal lifelong loving relationship so yeah it is consensual, but it is immoral to be having sex with someone who is married. Wouldn’t you be upset if you had a wife and you found out that she cheated on you?

And pornography is exploitive of women because it puts them in an industry that treats them as sex objects and not as people, and because pornography often attacks perverts. Pornography is a form of prostitution.

1. Sure. But that's a private matter between me and my partner and you can fuck off with your moral judgments.

2. If they've chosen to be in that industry and can leave as they choose, then that's their own choice. (If they can't, then, yes, there's cause for action.) As for prostitution, I think it should be legal, since it happens anyway, harms nobody outside those consenting to engage in the act, and legalising it makes it safer for all concerned. (Look up the Robert Pickton case from up here for what happens when you ban various activities surrounding prostitution, and also see Canada (AG) v. Bedford. Sadly the Conservatives were in power at the time and they enacted what is probably an even worse model which made everyone engaging the services of a sex worker a criminal.)

Quote

In Vancouver, for example, “Grandma’s House” was established to support street workers in the Downtown Eastside, at about the same time as fears were growing that a serial killer was prowling the streets — fears which materialized in the notorious Robert Pickton.

Quote

In my view, this conclusion was not in error. The harms identified by the courts below are grossly disproportionate to the deterrence of community disruption that is the object of the law. Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes. A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets, is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.

Quote

It is certainly conceivable, as this passage suggests, that some street prostitutes would not refuse a client even if communication revealed potential danger. It is also conceivable that the danger may not be perfectly predicted in advance. However, that does not negate the application judge’s finding that communication is an essential tool that can decrease risk. The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative. If screening could have prevented one woman from jumping into Robert Pickton’s car, the severity of the harmful effects is established.

Quote

Sex work is, for me, in the same category as smoking pot or (until recently) not legally recognizing same-sex marriages, a category I’d describe as “there’s just no logical reason this should be illegal.”

This cartoon focuses on how little sense the arguments against legalization make. But the most important line, for me, is in panel 2: “Wouldn’t that make things worse for maids?” It seems clear that 1) no law will ever succeed in wiping out sex work, and 2) laws making sex work illegal inevitably hurt the sex workers themselves.

When the government outlaws something, it’s going to lead to people being hurt.

And sometimes it’s worth it. Lowering the speed limit to 20mph in a residential zone will harm some people. Some people will be made late, some people will have to pay speeding tickets, etc. But in exchange for that, we get a big gain – pedestrians hit by cars will have a much higher chance of surviving. The gain, in this case, seems worth the loss.

But outlawing selling sex makes it much more likely that sex workers will be assaulted, hurt, even killed, and makes it much harder for them to go to police for help. And the more marginalized a sex worker is (for instance, because of race, or because of being trans) the more endangered they are. This doesn’t seem to be a case where the gains justify the losses.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Closest to 100% as possible, and everyone involved makes sure to be safe.

Yep, I fucked a few bored housewives. In fact, one time a picture of her husband fell out of her pocket. She asked me if it bothered me. I pulled her on top of it and fucked her.

I just meet up with women on the town, at the gym, at college, and walking around. The wonders actually having an amazingly attractive body does. And yes, I do go on Porn sites and look at their videos when I can't find a good lay.

So you don’t think cheating on a spouse is wrong? And you don’t consider pornography to be exploitative of women? This shows that us conservative Christians have better moral teachings on loving relationships, and women’s rights than you atheists.

Consenting adults, and consenting adults.

Now, if you want to argue that there wasn't consent, that'd be another matter... and if you want to argue that there can't be consent I have some radfem blogs I'd love to show you.

But a couple in marriage are in a legal lifelong loving relationship so yeah it is consensual, but it is immoral to be having sex with someone who is married. Wouldn’t you be upset if you had a wife and you found out that she cheated on you?

And pornography is exploitive of women because it puts them in an industry that treats them as sex objects and not as people, and because pornography often attacks perverts. Pornography is a form of prostitution.

I don't ever intend to have such a long time commitment as a wife. So I wouldn't know. Well, one time one of my girlfriends revealed she had sex with a water polo dude. Instead of flipping out, both me and water polo dude ah, enjoyed the fruits of our relationship with her at the same time

Prostitution as it is is not legal in most places. Porn is. There's an important distinction to be made. Also, maybe we really shouldn't have prostitution be illegal.

Closest to 100% as possible, and everyone involved makes sure to be safe.

Yep, I fucked a few bored housewives. In fact, one time a picture of her husband fell out of her pocket. She asked me if it bothered me. I pulled her on top of it and fucked her.

I just meet up with women on the town, at the gym, at college, and walking around. The wonders actually having an amazingly attractive body does. And yes, I do go on Porn sites and look at their videos when I can't find a good lay.

So you don’t think cheating on a spouse is wrong? And you don’t consider pornography to be exploitative of women? This shows that us conservative Christians have better moral teachings on loving relationships, and women’s rights than you atheists.

Consenting adults, and consenting adults.

Now, if you want to argue that there wasn't consent, that'd be another matter... and if you want to argue that there can't be consent I have some radfem blogs I'd love to show you.

But a couple in marriage are in a legal lifelong loving relationship so yeah it is consensual, but it is immoral to be having sex with someone who is married. Wouldn’t you be upset if you had a wife and you found out that she cheated on you?

And pornography is exploitive of women because it puts them in an industry that treats them as sex objects and not as people, and because pornography often attacks perverts. Pornography is a form of prostitution.

1. Sure. But that's a private matter between me and my partner and you can fuck off with your moral judgments.

2. If they've chosen to be in that industry and can leave as they choose, then that's their own choice. (If they can't, then, yes, there's cause for action.) As for prostitution, I think it should be legal, since it happens anyway, harms nobody outside those consenting to engage in the act, and legalising it makes it safer for all concerned. (Look up the Robert Pickton case from up here for what happens when you ban various activities surrounding prostitution, and also see Canada (AG) v. Bedford. Sadly the Conservatives were in power at the time and they enacted what is probably an even worse model which made everyone engaging the services of a sex worker a criminal.)

Quote

In Vancouver, for example, “Grandma’s House” was established to support street workers in the Downtown Eastside, at about the same time as fears were growing that a serial killer was prowling the streets — fears which materialized in the notorious Robert Pickton.

Quote

In my view, this conclusion was not in error. The harms identified by the courts below are grossly disproportionate to the deterrence of community disruption that is the object of the law. Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes. A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets, is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.

Quote

It is certainly conceivable, as this passage suggests, that some street prostitutes would not refuse a client even if communication revealed potential danger. It is also conceivable that the danger may not be perfectly predicted in advance. However, that does not negate the application judge’s finding that communication is an essential tool that can decrease risk. The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative. If screening could have prevented one woman from jumping into Robert Pickton’s car, the severity of the harmful effects is established.

Quote

Sex work is, for me, in the same category as smoking pot or (until recently) not legally recognizing same-sex marriages, a category I’d describe as “there’s just no logical reason this should be illegal.”

This cartoon focuses on how little sense the arguments against legalization make. But the most important line, for me, is in panel 2: “Wouldn’t that make things worse for maids?” It seems clear that 1) no law will ever succeed in wiping out sex work, and 2) laws making sex work illegal inevitably hurt the sex workers themselves.

When the government outlaws something, it’s going to lead to people being hurt.

And sometimes it’s worth it. Lowering the speed limit to 20mph in a residential zone will harm some people. Some people will be made late, some people will have to pay speeding tickets, etc. But in exchange for that, we get a big gain – pedestrians hit by cars will have a much higher chance of surviving. The gain, in this case, seems worth the loss.

But outlawing selling sex makes it much more likely that sex workers will be assaulted, hurt, even killed, and makes it much harder for them to go to police for help. And the more marginalized a sex worker is (for instance, because of race, or because of being trans) the more endangered they are. This doesn’t seem to be a case where the gains justify the losses.

Well if Grandma’s house kept the prostitutes safe while reporting them to the police, then it wouldn’t be a problem. The prostitutes would have been put in prison, given counseling, and taught to stop being prostitutes. The gains of prosecuting prostitutes to stop the act of prostitution outways the losses. Prostitutes can still go to the police and it is up to them to decide on whether to choose to be safe in prison or in danger in the streets.

Closest to 100% as possible, and everyone involved makes sure to be safe.

Yep, I fucked a few bored housewives. In fact, one time a picture of her husband fell out of her pocket. She asked me if it bothered me. I pulled her on top of it and fucked her.

I just meet up with women on the town, at the gym, at college, and walking around. The wonders actually having an amazingly attractive body does. And yes, I do go on Porn sites and look at their videos when I can't find a good lay.

So you don’t think cheating on a spouse is wrong? And you don’t consider pornography to be exploitative of women? This shows that us conservative Christians have better moral teachings on loving relationships, and women’s rights than you atheists.

Consenting adults, and consenting adults.

Now, if you want to argue that there wasn't consent, that'd be another matter... and if you want to argue that there can't be consent I have some radfem blogs I'd love to show you.

But a couple in marriage are in a legal lifelong loving relationship so yeah it is consensual, but it is immoral to be having sex with someone who is married. Wouldn’t you be upset if you had a wife and you found out that she cheated on you?

And pornography is exploitive of women because it puts them in an industry that treats them as sex objects and not as people, and because pornography often attacks perverts. Pornography is a form of prostitution.

I don't ever intend to have such a long time commitment as a wife. So I wouldn't know. Well, one time one of my girlfriends revealed she had sex with a water polo dude. Instead of flipping out, both me and water polo dude ah, enjoyed the fruits of our relationship with her at the same time

Prostitution as it is is not legal in most places. Porn is. There's an important distinction to be made. Also, maybe we really shouldn't have prostitution be illegal.

1. Well many husbands and wives do not want their spouses to cheat on them. Learn to consider their perspectives.

2. Well prostitution is selling your body, and since profit is made off of the porn industry, it is prostitution.

The act of selling sex was and is not illegal in Canada, and until the post-Bedford changes to prostitution law in Canada, nor was buying sex.

What was illegal were a number of things, among them the three challenged in Bedford that made prostitution (which was itself, I repeat, not illegal) dramatically more unsafe:

1. Keeping a common bawdy house, ie a brothel. What this meant is that sex workers could not operate in an environment where they could have things like security cameras, making their work dramatically more unsafe. (This is the provision under which Grandma's House, a safe haven at a time when there was a serial killer targeting prostitutes roaming the streets and ultimately claiming at least six and possibly as many as forty-nine victims*, was shut down.)

2. Living off the avails of another's prostitution. (Note that courts had long held that this was limited to doing so for the purposes of supporting that prostitution--a sex worker could still buy groceries with money earned from sex work without the grocer or the prostitute being criminally liable.) This meant that sex workers could not hire bodyguards or receptionists (for the brothels they couldn't have anyway), making their work dramatically more unsafe.

3. Communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution. What this meant was that sex workers, already mostly forced to work on the street, could not legally negotiate price or other matters, such as condom use, until they had already gotten to a private place with their client, which was necessarily far more unsafe than being able to do so in a place where other sex workers could watch out for them.

Again: selling sex was and is legal; buying sex was legal at the time of Bedford and is no longer so (which, again, I think is stupid). The bawdy-house provision necessarily limited prostitution to street prostitution or outcalls, which were themselves then made unconstitutionally unsafe by the other provisions.

And now I'm angry again: FUCK YOU FOR TRYING TO IMPOSE YOUR ASS-BACKWARDS "MORALITY" ON THE REST OF US WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO ITS UNPROVEN UNDERPINNINGS.

There is simply no reason for prostitution to be illegal, and if it were fully legal it would be much easier for those sex workers in problematic situations to get out of those situations by going to the police for protection without worrying about law enforcement looking into what laws they might have broken, and it would also mean that prostitutes could work without the fear that, since all of their clients are committing a criminal act simply by engaging their services, that client might not decide that, already being a criminal, there is far less disincentive to commit other criminal acts, such as taking the sex further than the prostitute is comfortable going (ie rape) or becoming the next Pickton (ie murder).

And, to quote the late George Carlin:

Quote

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?

*Pickton was convicted of six charges of second-degree murder. Since that was enough to put him away for life, the Crown dropped another twenty murder charges. He evidently confessed to forty-nine murders to an undercover agent posing as a cellmate, saying he wished he could have killed another woman to have an even fifty. (Note: Pickton was charged with first-degree murder, but was acquitted of that and convicted of second-degree murder. However, he was sentenced on all six counts to life without parole for twenty-five years--second-degree murder allows anywhere from ten to twenty-five--which is what he would have received had he been convicted of first-degree murder, where twenty-five years is automatic.)

« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 05:49:24 am by dpareja »

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

The act of selling sex was and is not illegal in Canada, and until the post-Bedford changes to prostitution law in Canada, nor was buying sex.

What was illegal were a number of things, among them the three challenged in Bedford that made prostitution (which was itself, I repeat, not illegal) dramatically more unsafe:

1. Keeping a common bawdy house, ie a brothel. What this meant is that sex workers could not operate in an environment where they could have things like security cameras, making their work dramatically more unsafe. (This is the provision under which Grandma's House, a safe haven at a time when there was a serial killer targeting prostitutes roaming the streets and ultimately claiming at least six and possibly as many as forty-nine victims*, was shut down.)

2. Living off the avails of another's prostitution. (Note that courts had long held that this was limited to doing so for the purposes of supporting that prostitution--a sex worker could still buy groceries with money earned from sex work without the grocer or the prostitute being criminally liable.) This meant that sex workers could not hire bodyguards or receptionists (for the brothels they couldn't have anyway), making their work dramatically more unsafe.

3. Communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution. What this meant was that sex workers, already mostly forced to work on the street, could not legally negotiate price or other matters, such as condom use, until they had already gotten to a private place with their client, which was necessarily far more unsafe than being able to do so in a place where other sex workers could watch out for them.

Again: selling sex was and is legal; buying sex was legal at the time of Bedford and is no longer so (which, again, I think is stupid). The bawdy-house provision necessarily limited prostitution to street prostitution or outcalls, which were themselves then made unconstitutionally unsafe by the other provisions.

And now I'm angry again: FUCK YOU FOR TRYING TO IMPOSE YOUR ASS-BACKWARDS "MORALITY" ON THE REST OF US WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO ITS UNPROVEN UNDERPINNINGS.

There is simply no reason for prostitution to be illegal, and if it were fully legal it would be much easier for those sex workers in problematic situations to get out of those situations by going to the police for protection without worrying about law enforcement looking into what laws they might have broken, and it would also mean that prostitutes could work without the fear that, since all of their clients are committing a criminal act simply by engaging their services, that client might not decide that, already being a criminal, there is far less disincentive to commit other criminal acts, such as taking the sex further than the prostitute is comfortable going (ie rape) or becoming the next Pickton (ie murder).

And, to quote the late George Carlin:

Quote

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?

*Pickton was convicted of six charges of second-degree murder. Since that was enough to put him away for life, the Crown dropped another twenty murder charges. He evidently confessed to forty-nine murders to an undercover agent posing as a cellmate, saying he wished he could have killed another woman to have an even fifty. (Note: Pickton was charged with first-degree murder, but was acquitted of that and convicted of second-degree murder. However, he was sentenced on all six counts to life without parole for twenty-five years--second-degree murder allows anywhere from ten to twenty-five--which is what he would have received had he been convicted of first-degree murder, where twenty-five years is automatic.)

Right, so if prostitution was completely illegal, then there wouldn’t be these complications. It would be hard for government to regulate it in a way that prevents sex trafficking.

If prostitution were completely illegal it would be hard for the government to prevent sex trafficking since the victims of said trafficking would be piss-scared to go to law enforcement, since they would also potentially face criminal liability.

Which is yet another reason I think prostitution should be fully legalised.

And as someone noted: why should it be illegal to sell something that can be legally given away for free? (Again, it is not illegal to sell sex here, but it is now illegal to buy it.)

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

If prostitution were completely illegal it would be hard for the government to prevent sex trafficking since the victims of said trafficking would be piss-scared to go to law enforcement, since they would also potentially face criminal liability.

Which is yet another reason I think prostitution should be fully legalised.

And as someone noted: why should it be illegal to sell something that can be legally given away for free? (Again, it is not illegal to sell sex here, but it is now illegal to buy it.)

Well most people would chose surviving and going to jail over avoiding the police and getting murdered. Sex is something that should not be sold period, because it easily causes a sex trafficking industry if there isn’t extreme government supervision, and then people would have to pay taxes to fund the supervision programs.

...You do realize that the taxes gathered from prostitutes and bordellos would pay for that supervision and more? It would also reduce medical bills due to better supervision and improved safety to prostitutes helping not only curb STDs (in some regions women get charged for prostitution if they have several condoms on them) but also reduce other work related threats like violent customers.

I suppose the main difference here is that I don't see prostitution as morally wrong (the bible doesn't condemn it and even Jesus was ok with prostitutes and in fact said more than a little about helping and being kind to those who have suffered hardships and are poor) and therefore there is no downside to legalizing it, only benefits.

...You do realize that the taxes gathered from prostitutes and bordellos would pay for that supervision and more?

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if legal prostitution ended up being a pretty big cash windfall, like how legal recreational marijuana has been places like Colorado (where they have more money than they can spend and are cutting cheques to all their taxpayers as rebates).

And here's the thing: whatever you do, you're not going to stamp out sex work. It simply WILL NOT HAPPEN. Far better, then, to legalize it, tax it, and regulate it properly than pour resources into unsuccessfully trying to stamp it out, making it unsafe for those who engage in it regardless, and realize no tax revenue from it.

Is sex trafficking going to be a problem? Sure--but it'll be a problem however you approach prostitution. Better to have revenues from legal, legitimate sex work to fund anti-sex trafficking programs than to have to spend other public resources on that.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada

Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

...You do realize that the taxes gathered from prostitutes and bordellos would pay for that supervision and more? It would also reduce medical bills due to better supervision and improved safety to prostitutes helping not only curb STDs (in some regions women get charged for prostitution if they have several condoms on them) but also reduce other work related threats like violent customers.

I suppose the main difference here is that I don't see prostitution as morally wrong (the bible doesn't condemn it and even Jesus was ok with prostitutes and in fact said more than a little about helping and being kind to those who have suffered hardships and are poor) and therefore there is no downside to legalizing it, only benefits.

But having sex being sold for profit could lead to the supervisors being bribed to not supervise what is going on. It is too dangerous.

Jesus was kind to prostitutes understanding that in Ancient Roman Culture, prostitution was common and taught Christians to help prostitutes, but he also taught that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong so he wanted Christians to be kind to prostitutes but tell them to stop being prostitutes.